Board hears $0.86–$0.99 million turf financing options; staff told to prepare bids and RFPs for grass repairs as interim step

A district finance consultant presented options to fund an athletic-field renovation, including lease-purchase financing sized to cover two MMTH construction bids (roughly $864,000 and $987,000). The consultant modeled both seven- and ten-year repayment plans and described repayment options (a dedicated levy of about 22–30 cents depending on term, or use of classroom trust funds and a district 7% transfer), call provisions, and a timeline that would allow proceeds by late April–May if the board approved moving forward immediately.

Board members questioned whether to pursue full turf via lease purchase, or to pursue a phased grass renovation and drainage repairs as a lower-cost interim step. Facilities staff presented a grass-rehabilitation alternative that would focus on a practice-field topdress/irrigation and targeted game-field repairs (estimated at roughly $92,100 for several prioritized fixes and an ongoing maintenance estimate of about $9,000 per year). Board members discussed the trade-offs—short-term costs and maintenance for grass versus long-term capital and replacement costs for turf—and the political considerations of presenting a financing measure versus using internal funds.

The finance consultant outlined an accelerated schedule if the board chose to proceed: select exact scope and financing terms, prepare a preliminary official statement, publish a public hearing notice, market certificates (with priority for local institutions), and approve a sale/resolution at the April board meeting. Several board members asked staff to draft an RFP/RFQ for immediate grass repairs and to confirm statutory advertising timelines before soliciting bids. No final financing vote was taken; the board directed staff to return with bid documents and a recommended financing approach.

Why it matters: Athletic-field repair has both safety and capital-funding implications. A turf lease-purchase would be a multi-year fiscal commitment; a phased grass approach is less costly now but could increase total lifecycle costs. The board’s next steps will determine whether voters see a levy ask or whether the district uses internal transfers to fund a lease or bond.

What comes next: Staff will prepare RFP documents for grass/field repairs, confirm bid/ad placement timelines, and return with financing recommendations and final numbers for the board to consider in April.